There goes western Montana - thanks for nothing Senator Tester

[donbrown]

Tell me who on here knows what each group does and if any benefit from snowmobiling?

Let me take a guess, NOTHING

Who on this list knows what the legal definition of the term "wilderness" on Federal land?

Again, Less than 0

The "list" I posted are Senator Testor's top 100 campaign contributors for his most recent election.

Some of them should benefit from sledding like steel and electrical unions.

So educating them as to what the Senator wants to do will help the Senator understand he is influencing the very people who paid to get him elected.

When I read the definition of "wilderness" as defined by the National Park Service I was amazed at how restrictive/prohibitive it is towards any mechanized access to the area.

 

[Scott]

People don't understand that there are two types of wilderness.

The one with a lowercase 'w', which to city folks indicates anywhere outdoors away from people.

Then there is the one that is the CAPITAL 'W', indicating a proper name...which also means limited access to certain people and excludes those who choose or MUST use motorized travel to access it.

I guess the ADA SHOULD have a fit over Wilderness designation, but I've never heard of them getting pissed about it. The Americans with Disabilities Act SHOULD keep wilderness areas from cropping up but it doesn't. Anyone know why?

 

[eddy]

Testers's Financial Supporters

donbrown make a very good point - If Tester's contributors are educated (by the good citizens of Montana) that they are supporting someone who is running though a Bill that hurts them financially they will not support him.

In the mean time we must fight this. Tester may be gone but the proposed law he created will move on!

I find it interesting all the Wilderness he creates for Mt Jefferson in on the Idaho side of Mount Jefferson (which is on the State line)!

Anyone from Eastern Idaho listening? You need to get a look at what this guy wants to do to one of your crown jewels!

 

[donbrown]

Who has a list of all the Chamber of Commerce organizations in the area?

Send them a fax AND email telling them all the lost business they will have as a result from making the area a wilderness.

Then send a fax AND email to every member who of the Chamber who has an website telling them all the lost business they will have as a result from making the area a wilderness.


Do snowmobilers buy gas?

Eat food?

Drink?

Buy tires?

Etc. etc. etc.

Every time you go into a business tell them you appreciate them being there for snowmobiling BUT you will be buying less because of this legislation. Tell the business about the Senator. Do this everytime I go into a business where I go sledding.

 

[Hardass]

Every one is saying the people of Mt, the citizens of Mt ,It's national forest people it does not belong to the people of Mt only, it's EVERYONES. People in nebraska and parts unknown are chiming in on this and making decisions for us here. so if your just getting a hold of people in your own state thats a big mistake.

 

[donbrown]

Every one is saying the people of Mt, the citizens of Mt ,It's national forest people it does not belong to the people of Mt only, it's EVERYONES. People in nebraska and parts unknown are chiming in on this and making decisions for us here. so if your just getting a hold of people in your own state thats a big mistake.

Good point.

I was in a National Forest the last week camping near a wilderness and talked with everyone I could about snowmobiling just outside the wilderness.

There were some "grunts" from the wilderness advocates so I asked them how they got here. Answered ... by car of course. Then told them how OHV money pays to maintain the road you drive to get to the wilderness. Also if this road is gone they have to walk another 30 plus miles to get to the "historic" sites in the wilderness. So after this all becomes "wilderness" you will need 3 more days to see what you saw in two days since access is only by foot.

I also pointed out how there were "manmade" trails in the wilderness and the "manmade" trails where I ride are the very roads you drive on to get to the wilderness.

I also asked the forest rangers there how many would be laid off if there was no Snocat, road plowing, tree and rock clearing. Do you need to do all those EIA to determine the condition of the environment? Plus what if all the roads were gone ... would you need all those stations and that huge complex in town?

Does it pay more to hike (verses them driving around in the NFS vehicle) in the wilderness to monitor hikers? How will you get out an injured hiker since you can't drive? Are you all gonna get a helicopter pilots license? But then won't all that chopter noise disturb the wilderness?

Then I finish it off to let them know 200 snowmobiles has the same impact as one hiker in the woods.

 

[Wade]

Maps: http://tester.senate.gov/Legislation/forestresources.cfm

 

[CleElum Sledhead]

People don't understand that there are two types of wilderness.

The one with a lowercase 'w', which to city folks indicates anywhere outdoors away from people.

Then there is the one that is the CAPITAL 'W', indicating a proper name...which also means limited access to certain people and excludes those who choose or MUST use motorized travel to access it.

I guess the ADA SHOULD have a fit over Wilderness designation, but I've never heard of them getting pissed about it. The Americans with Disabilities Act SHOULD keep wilderness areas from cropping up but it doesn't. Anyone know why?

Actually, I looked this up about a year or so ago, thinking similar thoughts as you - and in fact wheel chairs are allowed in wilderness areas.

The Wilderness Act does not mention this I don't believe, but if you look in the Forest Service Manual (FSM), there is a section on how the FS should manage wilderness. And sure enough there is a section about wheel chairs being allowed. But to get around people claiming that their ATV is a wheel chair, or some other fancy contraption is a wheel chair, the FS is very specific to the type of wheel chairs that are allowed. Something like "wheel chairs that would be used to attend a sporting event in a sadium are allowed".

So of course this means that wheel chairs, although allowed, would not be able to traverse the terrian in most wilderness areas, so people that require wheel chairs are not able to visit most wilderness areas.

 

[SnowSnob]

If Wilderness Area was changed to non-managed foot travel only I think it would get A LOT less support. We should buy off a Congressman to do just that. Why would they find any harm in changing the designation name???

 

[SnowSnob]

I stumbled upon this, it's a great article about this bill.
http://www.thebigskyweekly.com/node/226#

try and guess which comment is mine.

 

[fuzz]

I am posting a message sent out by Fred Hodgeboom, Montanans for Multiple Use. I dont think he will mind.
It is an excellent critique of Mt Wilderness Assn and Sen. Testicle's phony baloney back door wilderness scheme. Fred has sent it to several area newspapers but I have yet to see it in our local rag.
Also is a note on the bottom from Robin Mccollugh on the mining industry's input or should I say shutout.

Please contact your appropriate politicians, especially Tester, on your Strong Opposition to this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------


SENATOR TESTER'S WILDERNESS BILL FAILS REALITY CHECK

Senator Jon Tester's "new style jobs and wilderness Bill" introduced July 17 models the current mode of Congress' handling of legislation:
• Prepare the actual bill provisions in secret with only representatives of selected political supporters at the table.
• Roll the Bill out with great political campaign style fanfare and carefully staged media events.
• Do not publicly discuss the actual mandates in the Bill, only spout selected talking points provided by staff that are often outright falsehoods or at best half-truths.
• Push the Bill through as quickly as possible using political tactics to squash debate so that other members of Congress and the public have little opportunity to learn details of the Bill and opponents have little opportunity to tell their side of the story.
Passing legislation using the current Administration tactics is un-American. Like most political hype reported in the media, what most people hear is mostly smoke and mirrors. From the rhetoric to date, it is likely that Tester, even if he has read his own Bill, doesn't really understand the actual consequences of mandates in the Bill.

The claim that the proposals are a product of open public "collaboration" and "consensus" is just not true. There was no consensus on the Three Rivers designations on the Kootenai National Forest. Tester's Bill violates the most important principle requested by stakeholders in the Lincoln County Coalition (which morphed into the "Three Rivers Challenge). The principle is a requirement for multiple use access and timber management with jobs in-place that are just as permanent as the wilderness designations at the time of any new wilderness designations. Contrary to this request for equality, Section 7 of Tester's Bill even requires termination of the timber harvest targets after 15 years, or earlier if the Bill's timber harvest targets are actually achieved. Apparently few or none of the Lincoln County Coalition stakeholders were involved in writing Tester's Bill except the Wilderness activists who plan to negotiate another "deal" for more wilderness in the same area after 15 years.

Like the current Three Rivers Challenge, most "collaboration groups" consisted of selected people, and many public land "stakeholders" such as county, State, and Tribal governments, multiple use, mining, motorized recreation and the general public were often excluded from participation. Tester’s Bill violates the National Forest Management Act and many other Federal Statutes that require coordination with State, local, and Tribal governments. Many of the "collaboration committee" meetings were not advertised or open to the public. Most of the "stakeholders" that did participate in the collaboration meetings were certainly not consulted on drafting the provisions in Tester's Bill.

The Bill is not a "jobs" Bill by any stretch of the imagination. Every designation in the Bill permanently prohibits any significant future economic use of the land as mandated in the following provisions:
• The actual "Wilderness" designations permanently prohibit any mechanical equipment for access or development of any kind and doom the area to the "boom and bust" natural cycles of fuel buildup, insect attack and decay, and eventual catastrophic fire to release all the excess carbon buildup, destroy watershed function, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and pollute air and water with smoke and soil loss, as well as threaten private property, public health and safety.
• The permanent "Recreation Area" designations have very restrictive mandates that in effect are "quasi-wilderness": No new roads, no timber harvests, no mineral entry or leasing, no new developments of any kind, nothing for jobs only a black hole of management and protection costs to taxpayers. Motorized recreation such a snowmobiling or motorbikes are prohibited on most of the areas. Some motorized access may be provided on "designated areas or routes" as a result of maps to be prepared. Some areas are directed to have a "study" to see if and where motorized access will be permitted. It is clear the Bill will only further reduce already inadequate diverse recreation opportunities for the general public.
In the general forest area outside the area designations, there is no guaranteed timber harvest, only target acres specified that are subject to National Environmental Policy Act compliance (p.26), appeals, and litigation just as all timber sales prepared under existing Forest Plans. The reality is that the Bill provides no improvement over the existing situation regarding timber harvest to support industry and jobs.

Outside the wilderness and recreation designations, the Bill actually imposes additional onerous constraints over and above the existing Forest Plans. For example, timber sales must use the "Stewardship Contracting Authority" that returns all timber receipts to the Forest Service to do their pet projects (like obliterating more public roads), the local governments get nothing for support of roads and schools. Most access to National Forest lands use county roads, and Government employees educate their children in local schools. In reality the Bill "Stewardship" provisions are "unfunded mandates" that force local governments to pick up the costs like road maintenance, law enforcement, search and rescue, and firefighting resulting from the unmanaged Federal land in the counties subject to the Bill provisions.
• Construction of permanent roads for sustained timber production and protection are prohibited (p.20). Any road built to accommodate a timber sale or restoration project must be "reclaimed" at expense to the environment and taxpayers. Removing timber for commercial purposes from public land with no plan or provisions for future timber management, only barriers, amounts to unsustainable "timber mining". There can be no sustainable forestry without access to annually or periodically remove excess biomass and insect and disease infested trees, and no access to quickly suppress fires. In short, the existing problems of unhealthy forests and high fuel hazard will remain or increase on all the forest except the relatively few acres that may actually get treated. These mandates are totally unnecessary and costly, and the long term effect is to doom the areas to more catastrophic fires.
• In addition specified maximum road density mandates will mean existing roads built with public timber money for multiple uses will have to be obliterated or "decommissioned" to meet the mandate. The temporary jobs tearing out public roads that could support forest protection and sustained future timber harvest indefinitely is touted as "good paying jobs" when the long term effect means loss of productivity and jobs.
• Other unnecessary and vague prescriptive language in the Bill are invitations for litigation and abuse. On p.21, "...ensure that timber harvest activities are limited to stewardship areas." This invites "stewardship areas" to be gerrymandered to exclude areas that existing Forest Plans designate suitable.
There is a long-standing Congressional Protocol that Congress does not impose wilderness designations on States. Congress traditionally has approved wilderness designations that are agreed upon by that State's entire elected delegation. Freshman Senator Tester apparently doesn't agree or care to achieve consensus of Montana's elected delegation. Tester's Bill should be defeated on that basis alone.

Due to the facts presented above, Senator Tester's "Jobs and Wilderness Bill" is bad for Montana's economy, environment, and citizens' quality of life.

Fred D. Hodgeboom, President
Montanans For Multiple Use
P.O. Box 2509
Kalispell, Montana
406.837-1363

-----------------------------------------

On the mining end, the MMA and the Montana Bureau of Mines were allowed to provide input of our best guess on Mineral Potential for southwestern Montana. There was no request of data for the rest of the State. There was no opportunity to discuss the boundaries or the areas. The Wilderness Assoc. has refused to send me the actual suggested wilderness boundaries so we could consider the potential problems as how they relate to the specific location. They instead sent us the postage-stamp sized map with no references.
Robin McCulloch

 

[Wade]

Another analysis, not good for snowmobiling.

SENATOR TESTER'S WILDERNESS BILL FAILS REALITY CHECK

Senator Jon Tester's "new style jobs and wilderness Bill" introduced July 17 models the current mode of Congress' handling of legislation:
• Prepare the actual bill provisions in secret with only representatives of selected political supporters at the table.
• Roll the Bill out with great political campaign style fanfare and carefully staged media events.
• Do not publicly discuss the actual mandates in the Bill, only spout selected talking points provided by staff that are often outright falsehoods or at best half-truths.
• Push the Bill through as quickly as possible using political tactics to squash debate so that other members of Congress and the public have little opportunity to learn details of the Bill and opponents have little opportunity to tell their side of the story.
Passing legislation using the current Administration tactics is un-American. Like most political hype reported in the media, what most people hear is mostly smoke and mirrors. From the rhetoric to date, it is likely that Tester, even if he has read his own Bill, doesn't really understand the actual consequences of mandates in the Bill.

The claim that the proposals are a product of open public "collaboration" and "consensus" is just not true. There was no consensus on the Three Rivers designations on the Kootenai National Forest. Tester's Bill violates the most important principle requested by stakeholders in the Lincoln County Coalition (which morphed into the "Three Rivers Challenge). The principle is a requirement for multiple use access and timber management with jobs in-place that are just as permanent as the wilderness designations at the time of any new wilderness designations. Contrary to this request for equality, Section 7 of Tester's Bill even requires termination of the timber harvest targets after 15 years, or earlier if the Bill's timber harvest targets are actually achieved. Apparently few or none of the Lincoln County Coalition stakeholders were involved in writing Tester's Bill except the Wilderness activists who plan to negotiate another "deal" for more wilderness in the same area after 15 years.

Like the current Three Rivers Challenge, most "collaboration groups" consisted of selected people, and many public land "stakeholders" such as county, State, and Tribal governments, multiple use, mining, motorized recreation and the general public were often excluded from participation. Tester’s Bill violates the National Forest Management Act and many other Federal Statutes that require coordination with State, local, and Tribal governments. Many of the "collaboration committee" meetings were not advertised or open to the public. Most of the "stakeholders" that did participate in the collaboration meetings were certainly not consulted on drafting the provisions in Tester's Bill.

The Bill is not a "jobs" Bill by any stretch of the imagination. Every designation in the Bill permanently prohibits any significant future economic use of the land as mandated in the following provisions:
• The actual "Wilderness" designations permanently prohibit any mechanical equipment for access or development of any kind and doom the area to the "boom and bust" natural cycles of fuel buildup, insect attack and decay, and eventual catastrophic fire to release all the excess carbon buildup, destroy watershed function, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and pollute air and water with smoke and soil loss, as well as threaten private property, public health and safety.
• The permanent "Recreation Area" designations have very restrictive mandates that in effect are "quasi-wilderness": No new roads, no timber harvests, no mineral entry or leasing, no new developments of any kind, nothing for jobs only a black hole of management and protection costs to taxpayers. Motorized recreation such a snowmobiling or motorbikes are prohibited on most of the areas. Some motorized access may be provided on "designated areas or routes" as a result of maps to be prepared. Some areas are directed to have a "study" to see if and where motorized access will be permitted. It is clear the Bill will only further reduce already inadequate diverse recreation opportunities for the general public.
In the general forest area outside the area designations, there is no guaranteed timber harvest, only target acres specified that are subject to National Environmental Policy Act compliance (p.26), appeals, and litigation just as all timber sales prepared under existing Forest Plans. The reality is that the Bill provides no improvement over the existing situation regarding timber harvest to support industry and jobs.

Outside the wilderness and recreation designations, the Bill actually imposes additional onerous constraints over and above the existing Forest Plans. For example, timber sales must use the "Stewardship Contracting Authority" that returns all timber receipts to the Forest Service to do their pet projects (like obliterating more public roads), the local governments get nothing for support of roads and schools. Most access to National Forest lands use county roads, and Government employees educate their children in local schools. In reality the Bill "Stewardship" provisions are "unfunded mandates" that force local governments to pick up the costs like road maintenance, law enforcement, search and rescue, and firefighting resulting from the unmanaged Federal land in the counties subject to the Bill provisions.
• Construction of permanent roads for sustained timber production and protection are prohibited (p.20). Any road built to accommodate a timber sale or restoration project must be "reclaimed" at expense to the environment and taxpayers. Removing timber for commercial purposes from public land with no plan or provisions for future timber management, only barriers, amounts to unsustainable "timber mining". There can be no sustainable forestry without access to annually or periodically remove excess biomass and insect and disease infested trees, and no access to quickly suppress fires. In short, the existing problems of unhealthy forests and high fuel hazard will remain or increase on all the forest except the relatively few acres that may actually get treated. These mandates are totally unnecessary and costly, and the long term effect is to doom the areas to more catastrophic fires.
• In addition specified maximum road density mandates will mean existing roads built with public timber money for multiple uses will have to be obliterated or "decommissioned" to meet the mandate. The temporary jobs tearing out public roads that could support forest protection and sustained future timber harvest indefinitely is touted as "good paying jobs" when the long term effect means loss of productivity and jobs.
• Other unnecessary and vague prescriptive language in the Bill are invitations for litigation and abuse. On p.21, "...ensure that timber harvest activities are limited to stewardship areas." This invites "stewardship areas" to be gerrymandered to exclude areas that existing Forest Plans designate suitable.
There is a long-standing Congressional Protocol that Congress does not impose wilderness designations on States. Congress traditionally has approved wilderness designations that are agreed upon by that State's entire elected delegation. Freshman Senator Tester apparently doesn't agree or care to achieve consensus of Montana's elected delegation. Tester's Bill should be defeated on that basis alone.

Due to the facts presented above, Senator Tester's "Jobs and Wilderness Bill" is bad for Montana's economy, environment, and citizens' quality of life.

Fred D. Hodgeboom, President
Montanans For Multiple Use
P.O. Box 2509
Kalispell, Montana
406.837-1363

-----------------------------------------

On the mining end, the MMA and the Montana Bureau of Mines were allowed to provide input of our best guess on Mineral Potential for southwestern Montana. There was no request of data for the rest of the State. There was no opportunity to discuss the boundaries or the areas. The Wilderness Assoc. has refused to send me the actual suggested wilderness boundaries so we could consider the potential problems as how they relate to the specific location. They instead sent us the postage-stamp sized map with no references.
Robin McCulloch

 

[SnowSnob]

There's some Leaf Licker on here Big Sky Weekly saying this bill is terrible because there isn't enough Wilderness in it and that us motorheads need to get off our lazy azzes and stop whining about closures!!!!

I think this azz hat needs some help with a little STHU.

 

[fuzz]

Tester could care less about "saving" the timber industry. This is just to pacify the Wilderness pukes that helped finance his election. I doubt that he has even read the bill or has a clue what is really in it. (like most Demos). Notice it has to be passed quickly also. Sound familiar?

 

[Wade]

Tester could care less about "saving" the timber industry. This is just to pacify the Wilderness pukes that helped finance his election. I doubt that he has even read the bill or has a clue what is really in it. (like most Demos). Notice it has to be passed quickly also. Sound familiar?

I'm going to fall backwards, catch me quick. I trust you.

General question. What's the earliest any one can prove, they snowmobiled Hoodoo or Surveyor? Back in the early 80's would do.

 

[Scott]

I know some peeps that have sledded there for a LONG time. I'll call them and talk to them. Might have been in the mid to late 80s.

 

[SnowSnob]

Look at what I stumbled across.
http://www.montanaforests.org/?gclid=CI7VtbOjnJwCFRMUagod0V2bdA

 

[Wade]

Nice Read

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/testers_bill_merely_payback_to_green_tea_drinkers/C41/L41/

 

[Wade]

We assume this is OK to post. It's a two part due to length.

Citizens for Balanced Use
Tester's wilderness bill analysis

Here is an analysis of S1470, the new wilderness bill being proposed by Senator Tester. Please review these details and contact Senators Tester and Baucus with your concerns.
Senator Tester: 202-224-2644 tester@tester.senate.gov
Senator Baucus: 202-224-2651 max@baucus.senate.gov

SUMMARY
There are three types of public land (National Forest) changes proposed: Wilderness (W), Recreation Areas (RA) and Stewardship projects. The W and RA areas can be viewed as one combined area with respect to restrictions, since the restrictions on Recreation Areas are very close to the proposed Wilderness. The combined W and RA areas amount to about 1 million acres. The Stewardship projects are for habitat restoration only and add up to a total of 100,000 acres over the 10 - 15 years allowed for completion. After the habitat restoration is complete there will be NO MORE activity in those areas. The one-shot logging projects will be done...forever. The result will be that in the long run, when the designations and treatments resulting from this bill are complete, Montana will have 1.1 million acres of new designated and de-facto wilderness. There is NO general multiple use specified. This is in violation of the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act. The result of this bill would be to take the public land out of productive commercial use.
If you compare the latest version of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership Draft (2007) (BDP) with the Tester Bill it appears that the Tester Bill is a direct expansion of the BDP. The terms and conditions are much the same; the names of the areas are the same, with some added. Some of the acreages have been changed. Please see the table at the bottom of this document which indicates the areas and acreages.
The BDP and therefore S1470 were developed by a small handful of wilderness activists from the Montana Wilderness Association, other environmental groups and small local businesses. This was done behind closed doors, with no involvement of the public or from local government, in violation of the federal coordination laws.
This is a land lock-up bill, with nothing substantial given to the public in exchange for a million acres of wilderness.
Neither Montana nor the Nation needs any more wilderness. Currently there are 107 million acres of designated wilderness out of a total of 190 million acres of National Forest. That's over 50%. Just because the Montana Wilderness Association says we haven't had any Wilderness designations in 25 years does not mean we need more. Their arguments as to the need for this wilderness does not carry any scientific weight.

SPECIFIC PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS RE S1470 PROVIDING REASONS TO OPPOSE THE BILL
References from S1470 by page no.
p. 4 The stewardship projects are for habitat restoration only; no goal of multiple-use, sustainable forestry (i.e. growing trees for future harvest).
p. 7 "Access road" is defined as a temporarily road that must be obliterated before completion of the project.
p. 9 Restoration projects may include removal of access roads to "State, tribal, or private land"
p. 15 Proceeds from the sale of products of the stewardship projects must be reinvested only in other restoration projects in stewardship areas
p. 15 The stewardship contracts are not to EXCEED 10 years. They could be less.
p. 41 The termination of the Secretary's authority under this bill expires after 15 years, meaning that the Wilderness and Recreation Areas are designated forever, with no continuing oversight under this bill.
p. 15 Stewardship party is to "offset the value of goods". There is no explanation of what that means.
p. 17 "Habitat connectivity" is an undefined term specified as a criterion for prioritizing projects. Considering its implied meaning, this is a highly subjective measure.
p. 17 "Road density" (e.g. 1.5 mi/sq mi) is specified as the main criterion for prioritizing activities. "Road density" is highly subject to manipulation and should not be used.
p. 17 "Reduction in road density (that) would benefit affected wildlife" is another highly subjective, unscientific measure specified to be used to determine activities.
p. 19 The Secretary MAY develop trails. This is not required.
p. 20 In the stewardship and restoration areas NO new permanent roads are allowed
p. 21 What is the definition of "uncharacteristic" wildfires or insect infestations? Certain wildfires and certain insect infestations will be allowed, at the whim of the forest manager(s).
p. 21 Prescribed fires are to "mimic" natural fires. Could that mean a "let-burn" policy?
p. 22 Revenue can only be used for fish and wildlife habitat restoration. No general, unrestricted economic benefit from these contracts.
p. 24 Three community projects are named (Blackfoot Challenge, Blackfoot Community Project and Seeley Lake Coordinated Forest Management Project) and committee appointments are specified. These projects are not defined, and the committee appointments leave out local government.
p. 26 The stewardship projects can be appealed by anyone; meaning environmental groups could appeal and stop any given project. This makes the stewardship portion of the Act uncertain as to whether it will ever be accomplished.
p. 27 By allowing only one EIS and NO additional analyses prior to implementation of the project the Data Quality Act is violated. In other words, no one is allowed to challenge the "science" presented in the EIS.
p. 28 Changes in the EIS can be made in consultation with collaborative groups (environmental groups) only AFTER the project is underway.
Implications of the last two items: A project could be started with an EIS that is acceptable to all concerned, then easily changed through "consultation" with, for example, the Montana Wilderness Association, behind closed doors.
p. 30 All consultation is with resource advisory committees (RAC) or local collaborative groups. Local government coordination, as required by NEPA, the FLPMA and NFMA are not included. This will cause a violation of these federal laws.
p. 30 "Ecological restoration" projects qualify as stewardship projects. To understand what that means, one should read a document entitled "Citizens Call for Ecological Forest Restoration" ("Call"), produced and signed by 120 environmental groups. It is a 21 page detailed blueprint for "ecological restoration" and has the goal of ZERO commercial activities on the National Forests. This document has all of the elements contained in S1470, including what a "job" means and definition of "training". Jobs included in this kind of project include only those related to road decommissioning and forest restoration. These are temporary jobs, as the Call document strongly urges a passive approach to forest management...the sooner you can get out of the forest and not touch it again, the better.
p. 31 Partnerships are to be established with non profit youth groups to do these projects.
p. 37 Impacts of climate change are to be included in the analysis of projects
p. 41 All landscape restoration projects (stewardship portions) of this bill expire in 15 years, leaving the permanent wilderness intact.
p. 53 "adequate access to the private property to ensure the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property by the owner." "reasonable use" is up to the agency and "enjoyment of the property by the owner" could mean "adequate access" is limited to the owner only. Implies there will be private property within the boundaries of some of the wilderness areas and this should disqualify the area from wilderness consideration.
p. 54 In Wilderness, grazing will only be permitted if it was established in a given area before Sept. 3, 1964 per section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act (16 17 U.S.C. 1133(d)(4)), subject to additional, unknown regulations adopted subsequent to the Wilderness Act.
p 54 House Report 101-405 (Feb. 21, 1990) "provide(s) for the designation of certain public lands as wilderness in the State of Arizona"; and "Subject to the conditions and policies outlined in this report, the general rule of thumb on grazing management in wilderness should be that activities or facilities established prior to the date of an area's designation as wilderness should be allowed to remain in place and may be replaced when necessary for the permittee to properly administer the grazing program." Does this report constitute a law or regulation that applies to Montana?
p. 56-57 Outfitter & guide permits in existence at the time of this Act will be the only ones allowed in Wilderness. No new outfitter / guide permits.
p. 63 No timber harvests in Lost Creek Protection Area.
p. 65 - Recreation areas: prohibited activities include mining and timber harvest, off-road travel; almost managed as wilderness.
p. 64, p. 68, p. 71, p. 73 Recreation areas: "motorized travel shall be permitted within the National Recreation Area only on approved, designated trails and routes." All snowmobiles would be restricted from use off designated trails and routes.

 

[Wade]

PART 2

S1470 TABLE OF ACREAGES

WILDERNESS
Anaconda-Pintler 56,680
Lee Metcalf 18,950
East Pioneers 76,775
Electric Peak 4,653
Lima Peaks 35,120
Highlands 20,392
Italian Peaks 29,508
Lost Cabin 5,223
Mt Jefferson 4,465
Quigg Peak 8,388
Sapphires 53,327
Snow Crest 89,798
Stony Mountain 14,261
West Big Hole 44,084
Dolus Lakes 9,367
West Pioneers 25,742
Bob Marshall / Scapegoat 71,378
Bob Marshall Add 7,599
Mission Mountains Add 4,501
Blacktail Mountains 10,667
Roderick 29,869
Centennial Mountains 23,256
Farlin Creek 661
Ruby Mountains 15,504
Humbug Spires 8,892
Total Wilderness 669,060

PROTECTION AREA
Lost Creek 15,134
Total Protection 15,134

RECREATION AREA
West Bighole 94,237
West Pioneers 129,252
Thunderbolt Creek 22,037
Three Rivers 74,274
Otatsy 1,271
Total Recreation 246,797

Total Wilderness & Rec 581,142 1,005,265 349,849

STEWARDSHIP AREA
Beaverhead-Deerlodge 70,000
Three Rivers 30,000

Grand Total 1,105,265

Kerry White
Citizens for Balanced Use
1-406-600-4CBU